a3dtot

I am here at this forum to get an atheist point of view. I am fully prepared for any arguments.One of the biggest problems I have are the attacks I recieve from the religous side. My take on a creator is not really accepted by most christians so I thought who better to ask than atheist. Hopefully I will be able to strengthen my understanding and open myself to new ideas.I won't get into how I know God exist but for me it is not an issue of whether I believe it or not, it simply is true for me. I did not come about this belief through religous means. In general God is a being of perfect love and all things are done in order to achieve the enlightenment of his (God is neither male nor female just can't call him it) creations. I have no issues with evolution, astronomy or any other of the sciences as I am a fan of all. What matters to what I call the "Real God" is based in the emotional part of our existence and not in the physical. I fully accept that there is no physical proof of God, as a matter of fact, the lack of physical proof is of absolute importance to the understanding of what is known as God's will. If there is physical proof of God then there would be no choice. Free will is the most important part of our existence, because what I understand is that we must choose to love correctly in order for us to have the salvation that such beliefs are supposed to bring about.Please ask any questions or make any comments.

I tend just to always use the term God in place of a pronoun in general, you are correct... he and she are not accurate and it seems disrespectful... It makes for the allot of repeat on the word god, but anyways that's how I do it...

I've got a question, what is your opinion on the afterlife?

Logged

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Benjamin Franklin

If there is physical proof of God then there would be no choice. Free will is the most important part of our existence, because what I understand is that we must choose to love correctly in order for us to have the salvation that such beliefs are supposed to bring about.

Your conclusion is a non sequitur. How would physical proof of your god prevent me from choosing what I eat for lunch, for example? That aside, do you believe your god is omniscient—it knows everything past, present and future? If you do believe that then there can be no free will.

Logged

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. – David Hume 1711–1776

Animals rely heavily on their emotional systems to operate and survive in their natural worlds - no "God" or "it" required We cannot really decide what emotions to have - they are triggered by events usually beyond our control - I suppose we can decide to play a particular type of music that we know will elicit a particular emotion in ourselves, or deliberately place ourselves in an emotionally stimulating circumstance, or take a substance. So we can learn to manage our emotions and to some extent control the actions we perform as a result of emotions. But it is still just the ancient limbic (crocodile) brain we are playing with.

If there is physical proof of God then there would be no choice. Free will is the most important part of our existence, because what I understand is that we must choose to love correctly in order for us to have the salvation that such beliefs are supposed to bring about.

This is a very common claim. Greta Christina offers a response that I can't improve on.

Quote

“God can’t reveal himself to us clearly,” this argument goes, “because he wants us to have free will. We have to be free to believe in him or not. If he revealed his presence to us, we’d be forced to believe in him — and our free will is a precious gift. It’s what makes us God’s unique creation.”

It’s a really, really bad argument.

I’m going to dismantle it today.

Imagine you’re on a jury. You’re asked to decide whether something is or is not real, whether it did or did not happen: whether the accused stole the diamonds, or set fire to their warehouse for the insurance, or shot a man in Reno just to watch him die. The prosecution doesn’t offer much evidence at the trial — it’s all circumstantial at best, third-hand hearsay at worst, with excessive appeals to emotion and fear, and arguments based on faulty logic. So you decide to acquit.

You’re baffled. You’re outraged. You confront the prosecutor in the hallway, and ask, “Why didn’t you show us this evidence at the trial? Why show it to us now — when it’s too late to do anything about it?”

And the prosecutor replies, “Because you had to be free to decide for yourself. If we gave you that videotape, it would have made your choice too obvious. Free will is a precious gift, a crucial component of the justice system — and in order for the jury to have free will, we can’t make the right verdict too obvious. That would have forced your hand.”

Would you nod your head sagely in agreement? Would you think that was a sound and reasonable explanation?

Or would you think they were out of their gourd?

And if you’d think this was a ridiculous and outrageous explanation from the prosecutor — then why on earth would you think it’s a good argument when it comes to God?

How does this non physical God of yours play into such things as kids starving to death of hunger in places like Africa and/or the shooting of the kids in Conn.? Is this all part of some kind of Free will? When you are a kid starving to death do you have time to wonder about a God and all the stuff you mentioned? If this God of yours can't interfer then what good is It? If It can then it is a monster for not interfering.

You use the God concept as a security blanket for yourself to fill whatever needs you need filled. The logical answer is It is not there. See how easy that was?

Free will is the most important part of our existence, because what I understand is that we must choose to love correctly in order for us to have the salvation that such beliefs are supposed to bring about.Please ask any questions or make any comments.

Free will originates in a Christian lamer concept, of trying to explain why there is no evidence that God exists, whilst at the same time, claiming that they have evidence that God exists. Further Christian lamers like to also condemn people to hell using it: "You are going to hell, because you have free will, and you chose to ignore Christ". Without free will, hell doesn't work very well, because loving-God just sends most people to hell.

Nobody chooses to "love correctly"without heavy indoctrination into some faith, or belief system, beforehand. There may be some that start off Christian, who end up "loving correctly", later, as atheists. The only way you could love correctly, is if you never heard of salvation, but did it anyway. It is a rare individual, in a rare position, who will do this, which suggests that it's more about genetics and luck, than some talent of meditation.

Who you are is genetic. If you are born a psychopath, or autistic, you cannot love anybody correctly. Where was God, when we needed good love genetics? Answer: he created a competitive system, where we needed to kill for food, and then come up with lamer reasons to be nice to others, so that law enforcement would be cheaper, and our own lives more productive.

Religions have focussed on "love" as an end, because it keeps society going. However, nobody has thought up a reason for society, so it just keeps on developing technology and pop music.

You may have to face the fact that: (1) free will doesn't exist (2) we could love perfectly OK with God revealing himself.

By God not revealing himself, what he does is create a pit of hate, pointlessness and misdirection, not a place of free will. If God does not show himself, it's because he can't; not because it has any divine point to an individual's free will.

Nick beat me to it, but I'm going to ask again. Why did the free will of the school shooter take priority over the free will of the children and the others who died? Can free will really be that important if so many of us on earth are given the task of being victim to the free will of others?

If God gave us free will and that is of utmost import, you would think he would structure reality in such a way that each is given an equal chance to exercise it. Since that is clearly not the case, how do you make sense of the incongruity?

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

Nick beat me to it, but I'm going to ask again. Why did the free will of the school shooter take priority over the free will of the children and the others who died? Can free will really be that important if so many of us on earth are given the task of being victim to the free will of others?

If God gave us free will and that is of utmost import, you would think he would structure reality in such a way that each is given an equal chance to exercise it. Since that is clearly not the case, how do you make sense of the incongruity?

Indeed, if there any such thing as free will, it seems to have so many obvious and uncorrectable limitations as to render it essentially different from what most religious people consider to be free will. You can't chose not to be robbed, or murdered, or raped, or enslaved, or oppressed, that is the result of someone else deliberately curb stomping your free will with their own. It seems that if there is such a thing as free will, we would have to admit that it seems to have greater potential to enable evil actions than good, or at the very least those who use their free will for evil purposes are less likely to be overridden by the free will of a good person than vice versa.

So if free will has such limitations, how can we possibly consider it a divine gift? Shouldn't it be much less limiting than this? And how could Adam and Eve have free will prior to the knowledge of good and evil? In this case didn't the serpent really gift them with this by giving them this knowledge? The whole consideration of the Bible story can obviously be seen in different ways, but the serpent in the Eden story really seems to serve a sort of Promethean role, in that he is willing to share the knowledge of the gods with mankind, arguably at his own expense. Who is making the sacrifice here? Who is really setting us free? Who is really bestowing upon us a divine gift?

The only gift that Christianity offers is eternal life, as Hitch puts it, "at the low, low price of the surrender of your critical faculties". The serpent doesn't tell Adam and Eve he will punish them for their choice. He honestly tells them what the outcome will be, what consequences will be had, why God doesn't want them to do this, and generally gives them a straight and honest story so that they can make an informed decision. It's pretty sad when such a cult considers absolute honesty and truthfulness to be the root of all human evil, and instead reveres the con man who lies and doesn't want you to think for yourself. What the hell is this, and why do people like it?!?! It's only the most silly interpretation of this story that can ever hope to reconcile it, but you have to change it so much that it doesn't even resemble what was originally said!

The only gift that Christianity offers is eternal life, as Hitch puts it, "at the low, low price of the surrender of your critical faculties". The serpent doesn't tell Adam and Eve he will punish them for their choice. He honestly tells them what the outcome will be, what consequences will be had, why God doesn't want them to do this, and generally gives them a straight and honest story so that they can make an informed decision. It's pretty sad when such a cult considers absolute honesty and truthfulness to be the root of all human evil, and instead reveres the con man who lies and doesn't want you to think for yourself. What the hell is this, and why do people like it?!?! It's only the most silly interpretation of this story that can ever hope to reconcile it, but you have to change it so much that it doesn't even resemble what was originally said!

Yep, that about sums it up. You have free will, but do as you're told or you're toast.

Free will with only one right choice is a ridiculous concept. It should be called "limited, and I mean really limited, will"

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

Yep, that about sums it up. You have free will, but do as you're told or you're toast.Free will with only one right choice is a ridiculous concept. It should be called "limited, and I mean really limited, will"

Free will reduces down to a pigeon in a Skinner box, pecking the right key to get a food pellet.

if he were a Christian,he would have to accept the documented version of God. God,in this documentation is not all loving. If you can make up your own version,God can be exactly what you want him to be.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

For the religious concept of free will to have any real meaning at all, it has to be based on knowledge, not ignorance. Someone who lacks knowledge does not have free will, because the lack of knowledge fetters their ability to make a decision.

if he were a Christian,he would have to accept the documented version of God. God,in this documentation is not all loving. If you can make up your own version,God can be exactly what you want him to be.

I bet a3dtot's god is a lot like a3dtot

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

For the religious concept of free will to have any real meaning at all, it has to be based on knowledge, not ignorance. Someone who lacks knowledge does not have free will, because the lack of knowledge fetters their ability to make a decision.

Right, that's the same point Greta Christina makes in the essay that I excerpted and linked to.

To say that the less information you have about Christianity, the more freedom you have about whether to believe it, simply makes no sense. Taken to its logical conclusion, that line of reasoning would mean that the person with the most freedom of choice regarding the matter would be the one who knew nothing at all about it, which is pretty ridiculous. You can't choose to be a Christian if you've never even heard of Christianity.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

.... In general God is a being of perfect love and all things are done in order to achieve the enlightenment of his (God is neither male nor female just can't call him it) creations. I have no issues with evolution, astronomy or any other of the sciences as I am a fan of all. What matters to what I call the "Real God" is based in the emotional part of our existence and not in the physical.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the word 'god'. It almost seems to be a summation of the good and love in society rather than the usual 3 omni being. Could you explain ti a bit more please?

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

a3dtot

Yes or no, could the deity you "know" exists actually not exist? Could you be wrong?

What a fantastic response this is what I hoped for. Ambassador pony your question of could I be wrong. I know this might sound strange but somewhat regrettably No. I am absolutely certain of the existence of God or Creator may be a better name. Actually I may have ended up being an atheist except for the fact that I know He exists. I expect many at this forum to disagree with me, but most of the questions that atheists have are the same ones I have. I'm not really complaining, my life with what I call the creator has been wonderful, my problems are in understanding and trying to grasp the connection of the spiritual and the physical. I know that many in this forum may feel that the certainty of my conviction is part of the delusion but for me that would be un-true. This is a belief that I have fought against many times and even though I have some issues with some of the dogma, there is no way for me to deny what I am certain of. That is why I am here. I am hoping that with a wide variety of opinions it may help me clear up some of my own issues. Knowing that God exist, has actually made it more difficult for me not easier. Thanks for the responses so far and please keep them coming.

If there is physical proof of God then there would be no choice. Free will is the most important part of our existence, because what I understand is that we must choose to love correctly in order for us to have the salvation that such beliefs are supposed to bring about.

Your conclusion is a non sequitur. How would physical proof of your god prevent me from choosing what I eat for lunch, for example? That aside, do you believe your god is omniscient—it knows everything past, present and future? If you do believe that then there can be no free will.

Sorry it was meant specifically about God. If physical proof of God exist then you would have to deny reality in order to be an atheist. If God's face appeared in the sky and it wasn't some kind of special effects it would be impossible to deny God's existence. Since I believe very strongly that freedom of choice is our greatest gift from our creator this would be in direct violation of that choice. I believe that for us to love as the Creator wants us to love it must be of our own free will. I'm not a biblical scholar but one of my favorite parts of the new testament is the Beattitudes (if I'm spelling that correctly). Many of the passages says (paraphrasing here) You can obey the 10 commandments but without love it means nothing. On the second part of your post I'm afraid I do believe that God is omniscient but I spent quite a few years discussing that one with a friend of mine before he understood my point about fate. I would like that one as it's own post to be honest with you. It is not as simple as we would percieve it. My friend for most of our discussions always looked at fate as though it were in likeness to a game of chess. That kind of fate or destiny would probably even be unworkable for the Creator because it would require constant updating.

What a fantastic response this is what I hoped for. Ambassador pony your question of could I be wrong. I know this might sound strange but somewhat regrettably No. I am absolutely certain of the existence of God or Creator may be a better name. Actually I may have ended up being an atheist except for the fact that I know He exists. I expect many at this forum to disagree with me, but most of the questions that atheists have are the same ones I have. I'm not really complaining, my life with what I call the creator has been wonderful, my problems are in understanding and trying to grasp the connection of the spiritual and the physical. I know that many in this forum may feel that the certainty of my conviction is part of the delusion but for me that would be un-true. This is a belief that I have fought against many times and even though I have some issues with some of the dogma, there is no way for me to deny what I am certain of. That is why I am here. I am hoping that with a wide variety of opinions it may help me clear up some of my own issues. Knowing that God exist, has actually made it more difficult for me not easier. Thanks for the responses so far and please keep them coming.

a3dtot, I am just as convinced that there is no god as you are that there is one. How do you suppose we got so far apart? We apparently live on the same planet, and yet one of us looks at the world and sees a deity and the other does not.

I find the question marvelous. Well, at least very, very interesting.

A majority of the theists that come here are convinced that there is a god, but mostly because he is mentioned in the Bible so often or something. Where does your certainty come from?

Mine certainty comes mostly from a) seeing that all claims of a deity, regardless of religion, stem from ancient times, with no current interaction claimed (not counting scientologists maybe, but f**k them), b) better explanations of almost everything via science that indicates that no god is needed for us to be here and c) there is no noticeable advantage in being religious. Believers die at the same rate, have an equally wide range of life experiences and seem otherwise absolutely normal. Except that they believe. Granted, if they are getting an afterlife out of the deal, some might see that as a good thing. But here on earth, there is no advantage unless ones church has really good potlucks every week.

In other words, I see no sign of a god anywhere. The world is just as it appears it should be without one, and it doesn't help that the world appears to be actually worse off due to religious conflicts. Where do you see him, and why don't you think alternative explanations are not viable?

Added: You posted a response to 3sigma while I was writing this. Tell us more about fate. That is not a discussion we've had around here very often.

And note that you have already been charged with SPAG by a few folks. Which is our term for "Self-Projection as God". You are being charged that you, as an individual, have customized religion to fit your wants and needs, regardless of tradition and what organized religions say about any given matter of faith. Be prepared to back your stance with more than "Well, it is how I want it to be" or some here will want to eat you alive. Because it does appear that you are giving us yet another customized version of Christianity, and we get five to ten new ones a month.

I guess it is a source of irritation because we have to learn a new religion each time it happens. And we tend to presume real gods would bet their message across much more universally.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

If God's face appeared in the sky and it wasn't some kind of special effects it would be impossible to deny God's existence. Since I believe very strongly that freedom of choice is our greatest gift from our creator this would be in direct violation of that choice. I believe that for us to love as the Creator wants us to love it must be of our own free will.

It would hardly be a violation of our free will as to whether or not to love someone merely by our being certain of that individual's existence. In fact, quite the contrary, it isn't even possible to love someone whose existence you are uncertain of.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn